The Copenhagen Call

At the World Business Summit on Climate Change, the latest of the climate change meetings going on in Copenhagen in the run-up to the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference, global business leaders have issued what has been dubbed as the Copenhagen Call – a six-point statement of what they believe is required to create an effective new global climate change treaty. The points are stated and elaborated below

1. Agreement on science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets

We support the scientific evidence of the IPCC’s 4th. We are concerned that some recent scientific evidence suggests the problem may be worse than many of the IPCC estimates.

An effective global climate treaty must establish an ambitious goal and set emission targets that protect us and future generations from the risks of climate destabilization. Limiting the global average temperature increase to a maximum of 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels would entail abatement of around 17Gt versus business-as-usual by 2020.

This will require an immediate and substantial change in the current global greenhouse gases emission trend: it must peak and begin to reduce within the next decade. Longer-term targets must be informed by the evolving science, but the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report indicates that global emissions must fall by at least half of 1990 levels by 2050.

We believe that working to reduce emissions now is less costly than delaying our efforts. There is nothing to be gained through delay. The deepest reductions should initially be made by developed economies though global emissions reduction will require all nations to play a part.

Emissions reduction at this scale will profoundly affect business, and business is already taking action to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. We are ready to make those changes and support ambitious political decisions to address the climate challenge wherever we operate. If policies are well designed and implemented, the benefits of early action will outweigh the short-term adjustment costs. This early action can only be achieved by setting an ambitious 2020 target.

2. Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions

Achieving and tracking greenhouse gas emissions reduction is vital to measuring convergence towards the objectives of an effective climate treaty. As businesses we can set an example by contributing to a unified, coherent and reliable measurement, reporting and verification discipline leading to mandatory reporting. Accounting for the emissions we are responsible for will provide the basis for emissions reduction beyond what may be required by regulation and allow our performance to be properly judged and rewarded by investors and the public.

3. Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emission technologies

To promote effective, efficient, equitable and ambitious action to address climate change the world will need to mobilize the scale of investment necessary to achieve the emissions reduction required. Properly established, an international carbon market framed around ambitious reduction targets can enable both cost-effective abatement and create the carbon price stability to drive the deployment of technologies that will deliver large-scale emissions reductions.

The first steps to establishing a global market will be to enable linkage between national and regional carbon markets. An international agreement will help secure investor confidence in the carbon market, and national actions will help generate new financial flows for climate investment.

The new climate treaty must “push” the development of new technologies through the use of public funds to leverage private finance in early stage demonstration and deployment. This will require policy measures that create clear, predictable, long-term incentives to stimulate private investment and enable the global diffusion of capital and technology.

4. Deployment of existing low emission technologies and the development of new ones

The private sector is already the source of over two-thirds of the world’s investments in clean technology innovation, and is the most effective source of know-how and technology dissemination and transfer. Many low-technologies already exist and can significantly reduce global emissions. Significant emissions reduction can be achieved through energy efficiency, much of it with positive financial returns. Standards and regulations are the best way to achieve this. A new treaty must support deployment of low-carbon solutions by encouraging incentives for public and private purchasers to choose the lowest emissions infrastructure and technologies and for investors to account for climate risk in their decisions.

Government and business must work together to ensure that all nations have equitable access to new clean energy technologies and other innovations by, among others, working with developing countries to improve the infrastructure required for effective deployment.

An effective global climate treaty must provide the means to fund research, development and the deployment of new clean energy technologies. Pricing can help “pull” these technologies through the innovation chain, generate revenue and enhance the flow of investment to developing countries. Governments should strive to end the current perverse subsidies that favour high-emissions transport and energy infrastructure and promote deforestation.

A shift to a low-carbon economy, supported by private sector participation and government, has the potential to drive the next generation of technological innovation, address the environmental and economic challenges that climate change presents, and contribute to global development.

5. Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change

We recognize that adaptation is as important as mitigation in an effective global climate treaty. Adaptation planning will require a holistic and long-term planning perspective, which will require different levels of activity at the international, national and local levels. Businesses will be responsible for building much of the infrastructure needed to protect us from climate impacts. An effective global climate treaty will mobilize funding that supports public private partnerships to enhance development, adaptive capacity, climate resilience and management of risk.

6. Innovative means to protect forests and balance the carbon cycle

Because a significant proportion of the CO2 reduction required by 2020 comes from the sequestration of carbon in forests and agriculture lands, an effective climate treaty must facilitate such sequestration. If emissions reductions targets are to be met, there is an immediate need to protect forests and enhance carbon sequestration. The private sector can play an important role in reducing deforestation, particularly in developing countries, through mechanisms structured to value conservation.

We believe these elements should form the core of the international climate change treaty agreed at Copenhagen. As business leaders we stand ready to innovate and operate within the framework established through that treaty and national policies.

Reducing the emissions that until now have been so linked to our economic growth and betterment will be an enormous, unprecedented global challenge but will also provide significant opportunities for sustainable growth, development and innovation. Acting together, we owe it to future generations to meet this challenge. Now is the time to create the foundations for long term, low carbon prosperity. We are willing to work with government to do so.

For more information, the Call itself, transcripts of the special address by Cate Blanchett and opening address by Ban Ki-Moon, do visit the Copenhagen Climate Council’s website.

New Battery Technology Improves MacBook Pro Battery Life by 60%

Source: “New Battery Technology Improves MacBook Pro Battery Life by 60%“, treehugger.com, Jaymi Heimbuch, 6th Jan 2009

Photo via Gizmodo

New battery technology in the 17″ MacBook Pro was shown off at MacWorld today, which lays claim to a battery life improvement of 60%. The new battery can last up to 8 hours on a charge, and can be charged 1,000 times, equivalent to about 5 years. It’s also recyclable at the end of it’s life. But there are even more green features to this new technology.

Apple made a block of batteries, rather than the usual cylindrical cells that end up wasting space. The newly utilized space allows the notebook to have a 40% bigger battery, without making the notebook bigger. The problem, of course, is that you have to take the notebook apart if you want to replace the battery. 

But the upside is that it will last three times longer than the industry standard. The trick for making it last longer is using a chip within the battery that communicates with each cell to make adjustments to the current for each cell. This means a maximized battery life.

With it lasting so much longer, and being recyclable at the end of it’s life, that alone is enough to get Dell to hush up a bit. But additionally, Apple has a take-back program for the batteries, making recycling even easier, and it is EPEAT Gold, arsenic, BFR, mercury, PVC free, and touts 34% smaller packaging.

Via Gizmodo Live Blogging at MacWorld

More on Apple
Apple’s Mac Brick Rumors and the Environmental Impact
Apple Recycles iPods, Computers, All Brands of Cell Phones
New Apple Macbook & Macbook Pro has Greener Energy Saver Icon
Steve Jobs: New Apple Nano iPods to be Greener

Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling

Source:”Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah’s National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling“, treehugger.com, Business & Politics, Jeremy Elton Jacquot, 9th Nov 2008

Image from jderuna

There is no doubt that the Bushies will go down in history as the administration with the least environmentally-friendly record (among other dubious distinctions). Having already gutted the Endangered Species Act, denied the existence of climate change and vehemently resisted efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is not as if the president has been trying especially hard to rehabilitate his dismal reputation. Last Friday, we learned of the Bush administration’s latest environmental hit job, courtesy ofThe New York Times‘ Felicity Barringer: a plan by the Bureau of Land Management to open tens of thousands of acres on or near the borders of three national parks in eastern Utah, including Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park, to drilling.

Image from Wolfgang Staudt

Decision taken without consulting National Park Service
In light of the administration’s ongoing (and recently accelerated) efforts to ease regulations on its industry allies, this does not exactly come as a shock (see Greg Haegele’s list of top 10 “eco-horrors” for more recent coverage). What was perhaps a little surprising was that the BLM did not even bother to notify officials in the National Park Service (some of whom presumably adhere to the administration’s anti-environment philosophy); instead, the agency quietly released an updated lease proposal (the first one was also heavily criticized for giving the green light to further industrial activity) that included 40 – 45 new areas. It evidently hoped to attract as little attention as possible, releasing it on November 4.

Late auction date will hurt next administration’s efforts to reverse sales
The new tracts will be sold at auction on December 19. (Incidentally, this is the last lease sale before the president leaves office.) As a result, instead of having the customary 1 – 3 months to comment on the new proposal, top managers at the NPS will have precious little time to voice their concerns about the drilling’s impact on the parks’ water, air and wildlife. When asked if she would reconsider offering the tracts in December, Selma Sierra, BLM’s state director, pointedly refused, Barringer notes.

Those who believe an Obama administration would be able to easily reverse the sales are mistaken: Any effort by the new government to do so would likely result in the energy companies filing suit or taking other retaliatory action — moves that would likely drag out the process for several months or years.

Earlier this year I wrote about the NPS selling our parks short by inhibiting its own ability to purchase the estimated 1.8 million acres of land listed for acquisition (it only requested $100 million from Congress for fiscal year 2009 to buy $1.9 billion worth of land). The fact that this administration has even managed to take its own officials by surprise speaks volumes.

More about the Bush administration’s shenanigans
In this Week’s Bargain Bin: Our National Parks
10 Eco-Horrors That Should Have You Scared
A Return To Colorado Oil Shale?

ExxonMobil Still Fighting Hard to Avoid Making Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Debacle

Source: “ExxonMobil Still Fighting Hard to Avoid Making Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Debacle”, treehugger.com, Jeremy Elton Jacqout, 1st Nov 2008

Image from marinephotobank

For a company that supposedly prides itself on being more than just your “regular” oil firm (is it just me or was every other ad during the Beijing Olympics an ad for ExxonMobil’s “softer” side?), ExxonMobil sure has a strange way of showing it. Indeed, while it continues to rake in record profits (most of which I’m guessing does not derive from its non-oil initiatives), it has fought tooth and nail in court to avoid making the interest payments it owes to the victims of the 1989 Valdez oil spill. The Center for Public Integrity’s Marianne Lavelle, who got the scoop on the story, notes that the amount it owes, roughly $500 million, corresponds to about three days‘ worth of its profits.

Image from YourLocalDave

Supreme Court decision spared Exxon from worst of punitive measures
You may remember that Exxon got off relatively easy in the lawsuit filed against it by a coalition of Alaskan fishermen, cannery workers and others affected by the spill, with the Supreme Court ruling that it would only need to pay $500 million in damages instead of the original $2.5 billion. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that, on top of the $500 million, Exxon also owes the Alaskans $500 million — the equivalent of 12 years’ worth of interest (since the date of the original judgment on September 24, 1996).

Exxon interpretation would allow it to only pay several months’ worth in interest
Exxon, obviously, did not agree with the lawyers’ interpretation, saying that it should only owe interest from June 25, the date of the Supreme Court’s decision. This comes at a time when Exxon announced $14.8 billion in quarterly profits, the largest of any U.S. company in history and divulged that it had spent $8 billion to buy back its own stock.

Before any money gets disbursed to the plaintiffs (assuming they win their case, of course), another dispute involving Sea Hawk Seafoods, a Seattle-based company that operated a fish-processing plant in the area, will need to be resolved. The company has challenged the court’s formula for distributing the money, so a decision will need to be reached before the other plaintiffs can begin receiving an average of $15,000 (double that if Exxon is made to cough up the interest) each.

Looks like Exxon may need to pour more cash into blanketing the airwaves with sappy, tear-jerking ads if it hopes to get rid of all this bad (but well-deserved) publicity.

Via: PaperTrail Blog: ENERGY: Amid Record Profits, Exxon Tries to Shirk Interest Payments in Valdez Oil Spill Case

More news about ExxonMobil
Exxon Blocking Toy Safety Bill That Would Ban Phthalates in Toys
Greenwash Watch: Exxon’s New Improved Lithium Ion Battery
Who Are They Kidding: Exxon Says Never Doubted Climate Change

China’s Gas Hike Pushes Drivers to Public Transit

by Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 11th July 2008 for treehugger.com

(Photo Credit: Jiankun )

Beijing is “trying it’s best to improve the environment” for the Olympics, largely by shutting down factories. But to really improve the environment in Beijing in the long term the government will need to focus on a much smaller but more prevalent carbon and particulate emitter: the car.

In the past, the city hasn’t shown much interest in lowering the subsidy on gasoline or limiting cars, which, in a typically Chinese conflict of interest, are largely produced by state-owned companies. But last month, in a reflection of global pressure on gas prices, Beijing instituted a 16-18 percent rise in gas prices. Like elsewhere, the effect has been to increase public transit ridership. According to today’s China Daily, a survey by news portal Sina.com found that

Nearly 28 percent of those surveyed said they would considering switching to buses, while more than 12 percent said they would give up driving and take the subway…

Among the 1,358 respondents, roughly 75 percent said they would use their car less, while less than 21 percent said they would continue the same amount of use. 

Just as China is starting to go crazy for the car, in a hyperspeed replay of the US’s 1950′s car obsession, it’s also driving up against the realities of the oil market and pollution in a way that the US did not have to for decades.

That gives China an incentive to take advantage of its late arrival to the automobile, reconsider its love affair and perhaps leapfrog the West. 

Disincentives, like higher gas prices, are more effective at shifting behavior when coupled with incentives, like good public transit. Cities across China are already investing billions of dollars in new and upgraded public transportation like subways and BRT lines. By the end of this year, Beijing is expected to have opened four new lines, including the massive line 10. The city government is breaking the socialist mold by quietly using private financing for certain large public transit projects, like subway line 4, which is being built in part with investment from Hong Kong’s successful subway operator MTR Corp.

But just adding public transit won’t be enough: cities need to find ways to make commutes comfortable and palatable to those who can afford to drive. In Beijing, rush hour can feel like a long, tedious exercise in sweating and squeezing into tight spaces. Said one Beijing driver who is on the fence about public transit,

“It takes longer for me to drive to work than riding the subway, but riding the subway is less comfortable because there are so many people there” …

China also has another leg up on the rest of the world: it still relies heavily on the bicycle. Though city planning has steadily given preference to the car in recent years, a backlash appears to be underway. It’s abetted as much by fuel prices as by the sheer crowdedness of Beijing’s roads. As one Shanghai TV executive, who owns a bright-blue VW Polo but hardly ever drives it, told the Associated Press,

“The traffic’s getting worse and worse and you end up wasting hours on the road,” Wu says, adding, “The bicycle is still the best vehicle for China.”

 

Not everyone is listening to Wu: car sales are expected to keep rising steadily. Though only six percent of the population in China drives, it has already grown into the world’s second-largest auto market, with private cars topping 38 million as of June 2008.

Demand is slower now: growth for both SUVs and passenger cars has slowed by about a fifth in the first five months of this year.

But rising fuel prices, coupled with environmental awareness and government policies and incentives, may help power the industry into lower emissions and eco-friendly technologies. 

Last week, Toyota announced that it would be building Camry hybrids in China, amidst rumors that the government might institute preferential treatment for green automakers. It only sells a few hundred Priuses in China a year, but expects to build at least 10,000 Camry hybrids in its first year.
Better hurry. As Ted Koppel says — he’s just made a documentary about cars in China that’s on TV tonight — imagine the cost of oil once 9 million more drivers hit the roads.

Koppel on Discovery: The People’s Republic of Capitalism
Watch a clip here

Computers can reduce emissions by solving efficiency problems

Good Computer, Bad Computer

The Global eSustainability Initiative has released a report showing that while information and communications technologies (ICT) use a lot of energy and have an impact on global warming, that impact might not be negative. It is true that electronic equipment worldwide is about on par with aviation for CO2 emissions with 830 million tonnes (or 2% of total), but the other side of the coin is that these technology could help avoid 7.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2020, or 500% more than what they caused.

How Computers Make us Greener
The most obvious way that electronic equipment can make us greener is by reducing transportation emissions: Videoconferencing, email, audio calls, etc. That should all add up to between 140m and 220m tonnes of CO2 a year in 2020. But the real big improvements are elsewhere: Improving logistics (f.ex. planning better routes for delivery vehicles, managing supply chains better, etc) could save 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2, using data networking to create a “smart” grid could save 2 billion tonnes of CO2, and computer-controlled buildings that can manage lighting and ventilation depending on how many people are inside could save a further 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2.

But it won’t happen on its own:

None of this will be easy. The industry can supply the hardware and software, but the bigger problem is the “wetware”—people, economics and politics. The right skills are often scarce. Incentives are lacking for businesses to invest in carbon-reducing technology. There need to be new technical standards. For transport, power grids and buildings to become more efficient, there must be rules on how, for instance, refrigerators should talk to electricity meters, and thermostats to heating systems. But the internet shows that when common standards are agreed on in an industry, great things can happen. The technology industry’s contribution to tackling climate change may come from its standards bodies as much as its clever gizmos.

Green Electronics
CherryPal: A 2-Watt Computer the Size of a Paperback
Number of the Day: 11.8 Million Computer Servers in the US
BuyGreen: Laptop Computers
BuyGreen: Desktop Computers
Saving Energy in Data Centers with Smart Sensors and Algorithms

More on Positive Impacts of Computers on the Environment
Computing sustainability

“Telecommuting is Green and Saves Money, but Most Employers still Resist it”: A Deeper Analysis

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 23rd June 2008 for treehugger.com 

and the “My Input” is purely my own input of ideas and analysis

(Photo Credit: Sean Dreilinger)

Telecommuting Faces Employer Inertia
In these days of increasing environmental awareness and rising oil prices, telecommuting is gaining mindshare. Yet employers are still reluctant. According toCIO Insight Research’s Mobility Survey: “51 percent of CIOs and other senior IT leaders surveyed said their companies discourage fulltime telecommuting. An equal number of the 237 respondents—24 percent each—said their firms encourage fulltime telecommuting or remain neutral.”

But there is hope, since when asked how their company’s policy has changed over the past 3 years, 34% said that it’s more positive against 8% replying it was more negative for full-time telecommuting, and for part-time telecommuting, the figures are 46% vs. 5%.

(Photo Credit: veo_)

On the employee side, things are different, especially in the IT sector (where telecommuting makes the most sense, obviously).

“In a poll of 1,500 technology workers, 37 percent said they would accept a salary cut [of up to 10%] if they could work from home, according to Dice Holdings.”

Telecommuting Could Save Billions of Gallons of Gasoline 
According to Telework Exchange, “for white-collar employees who feel they could do their jobs from home began to telework twice a week, the United States could conserve 9.7 billion gallons of gasoline and save $38.2 billion a year.” These calculations are based on 50 miles roundtrips in vehicles getting 24 miles per gallon, with gasoline at $3.94/gallon.

Links by Treehugger.com

Telecommuting
TreeHugger Picks: Telecommuting
Telecommuting: Why don’t you stay home?
Bill Encourages Telecommuting in USA

Efficiency
CherryPal: A 2-Watt Computer the Size of a Paperback
Efficiency is Crucial to a Green Future

More on Employers Resisting Telecommuting
CIO Insight Research’s Mobility Survey
Most Employers Resist Telecommuting
U.S. IT Pros Eager to Telecommute
Telework Exchange Report (pdf)

My Input:

Great idea. At least superficially. If going to work is going to be only a 9 to 5 affair at the computer, why not do it at home? Saves the gasoline required to go to work everyday. Multiply that with the number of people who go to work everyday to do a job of this kind, and you get a reasonable estimate of how much fossil fuel you save. You could also probably multiply that over the number of years we had always done that. But that complicates things, of course.

However, the sheer magnitude of it all is very apparent when put into perspective. You don’t need a complicated study to do all that.

However (a second one), is it really such a good idea? What about work productivity? What about the ease of communication of ideas? What about dissemination of orders, information, ideas, announcements etc? Would all these, which are probably or arguably important in any corporation be compromised by telecommuting?

Let’s do a much closer analysis, a qualitative one, not a quantitative one.

What are the potential benefits for employers? Let’s make it bite-sized shall we?

• Possibly (the key-word) greater work productivity due to increased comfort/convenience at home
• Possibly a saving in the form of employee wage cuts as appropriate by decreased fuel allowance (“In a poll of 1,500 technology workers, 37% would accept a salary cut [of up to 10%] if they could work from home, according to Dice Holdings.”)
• Probably more man hours, due to tapping of hours beyond the rigid 9-to-5 working hours currently (for e.g. at night)

Let’s analyze these potential benefits deeper. My list isn’t exhaustive, this is all I can think of at the moment. Feel free to comment.

Number one. Greater work productivity at home. Possibly. With good work discipline, self-discipline, TV-discipline, refrigerator-discipline, you could possibly pull off uninterrupted, quality work. Trust me, and be honest to yourselves, home is the worst distraction you can give yourself for work, unless you have the mentality to counter that. So number one isn’t really a convincing factor for positivism for support for telecommuting from company heads.

Number two. This is possibly the most convincing point. You save money paying people. And people wouldn’t mind anyway, because transport is already so expensive, and is probably set to be worser in future. This probably needs a quantitative analysis. So I can’t help you there.

Number three. To really be honest, I think the freeing of hours beyond the standard today, probably wouldonly compensate for the loss of productivity from telecommuting. Last-minute work at night, loss of quality from rushing through work. These is irresponsible behaviour. However, you’re bound to have this kind of thing in every company. 

The solution? A more mature policy that would have strict standards of quality of work, with the flexibility of working times for productivity. These would in turn promote a healthy mature employee who can plan his time well, and still produce results. What utopia! However, it is achievable, nevertheless, to a certain degree. Experimentation would be a good idea to see which policies or ideas fit which forms of work, which companies, which employees etc. Company policy should be customized to the employee, the nature of work, the nature of the company etc.

  

The ultimate verdict: let’s not BLINDLY talk about telecommuting as the green solution, without considering the consequences. Let’s as environmentalists or green fellas provide WORKABLE SOLUTIONS, rather than rant off at shallow, superficial half-conceptualized policies. I am not criticizing anyone or the article in specific. I am merely directing all of our attention to the greatest mistake that environmentalists made, make and probably keep on making.

 

 

The Rising Value of the Global Carbon Market

by Ron Dembo, Zerofootprint on 05.15.08

Recently only a pipe dream, the carbon market has exploded in recent years. With “cap and trade” schemes available in the EU and more recently British Columbia – Canada’s most western province – plans are set to follow suit in Australia, New Zealand and the rest of Canada. Even the typically sluggish United States seems poised to adopt some form of emissions trading scheme, with all three presidential candidates stating their support for some permutation of a carbon trading initiative.

Whatever the time frame, it seems near inevitable that companies will face increasingly binding laws to account for the amount of carbon dioxide (and equivalent gases) they release into the atmosphere. And with the emergence of this trend, a new speculative market has evolved, offering an increasingly attractive area for earning a profit.

Inklings of the profitability of this market became even more evident last month when investment giant Merrill Lynch became the first Wall Street firm to make significant inroads into the carbon market. Securing $ 9 million worth of carbon credits in anavoided deforestation program near Aceh, Indonesia, Merrill Lynch’s investment is a gamble that these credits will be worth significantly more in the not too distant future. In the month since this investment, momentum around the global carbon market has demonstrated signs of a significant boom, with increasing interest from high profile financial companies, and gaining page space in business publications across the globe.

Further evidence of the boom can be seen strictly in the numbers. The recently released “State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets”, published by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance, presents reliable figures that echo other reports of a similar nature. The numbers demonstrate the steady upward trend of carbon markets in recent years, and suggest that they will only continue to grow. It shows a total of 65 million tonnes of carbon were traded on the voluntary market in 2007, worth a total of $ 331 million. This figure came in 240% higher than in 2006, resulting partially from a mean rise in the price of carbon emissions from $ 4.10 per tonne to $ 6.10 per tonne. However, an overall expansion of the global carbon market – largely through the creation of more carbon credits – also continues to pour money into a commodity that only five years ago had very nearly no value.

Regulated markets also made significant gains in the past year, rising in value by more than one third between 2006 and 2007, to a total value of slightly more than $ 66 billion. This number results largely from the massive EU-ETS (European Union Emissions Trading Scheme), and the similarly large CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), and will only continue grow as more countries add regulated emissions trading to their legislation.

With the appearance of these burgeoning markets, viewpoints have crept up, both decrying and lauding the developments. Supporters of placing a trading value on carbon tend to point to the power of financial incentives to enact meaningful changes. Objectors often claim unfair benefits are given to the worst polluters, and that trading schemes obfuscate from the real problem – the excess of greenhouse gas emissions that continue to perpetuate global warming.

Regardless of who may be right, projections for both the voluntary and regulated carbon markets are only headed in one direction: upwards. As the market values swell, carbon will become an increasingly valuable aspect of financial accounting and investment. However this process continues to unfold, it will be of utmost importance that we, as a global society, are monitoring the process to ensure meaningful steps are being taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere, and to limit the impact of anthropogenic global warming.

My input:

Here’s a brief summary on how cap-and-trade schemes work for people who are new. Cap and trade schemes were first employed by the Kyoto Protocol (I may be mistaken, but that’s of no consequence to understanding) as carbon credits. Companies who emitted greenhouse gases of quantities below the amount stipulated by the Kyoto Protocol could under such a scheme literally sell away their right to pollute, to put it crudely, to other companies which exceed the limit. As you can see, the less pollutive companies, or companies who employ more resource efficient technology would actually be able to use such a scheme to obtain a supplementary profit. The larger companies would have to continuously buy such carbon credits from the less pollutive companies. Ultimately, this “pressure” would be translated to a gradual replacement of existing technologies with newer, more efficient and less pollutive ones. That’s how cap-and-trade schemes work, or more rather, are supposed to work. In overall, the total amount of anthropogenic carbon emission would fall.

On closer inspection, there’s a real problem. What IF the pressure isn’t nearly enough to illicit a change?